Mr Wrestling X

I've noticed that many posters have mentioned money as a big factor, and yes it is, because with having a generous financial backer makes it so much easier to get TV deals, the best advertising opportunities and not to mention access to premium resources and top talent. However, look at Vince McMahon, he essentially risked everything he had on one big event and built his product off the success of that. Sure, the WWF was already an established promotion which had all the things necessary to be run as a wrestling promotion, but McMahon decided to that he needed to make his company number one and following an aggressive national expansion, the final thing left to do was risk all his business and personal assets on one big event. The real turning point for McMahon was the success of WWF's foray into the PPV market along with it's merchandise sales from the success of WWF personalities like Hulk Hogan. Perhaps this kind of risk taking is something that is required in order for a wrestling company to stand a chance at rivaling WWE? We saw TNA take a big risk in 2010 by choosing to put out Impact live on Monday nights, however this was a colossal failure, we've also seen some of the smaller promotions like ROH taking risks by deciding to expand into the TV market (which is at so-so levels currently). I believe there is a possibility that some WWE employees would jump ship to a company that offered them better benefits such as: - A company integrated insurance policy - Contracted holiday allowance - The option to join a union - A retirement plan for long term employees

Was he not always known as such in Japan? You've just reminded me of that and it could possibly have worked just as well...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that Vince isn't like the way some people describe him, but I think a lot of it can be down to bitter ex-employees and people that he's rubbed up the wrong way. I think it's easy to say that Vince has been responsible for some awful gimmicks for his own amusement because he's been the only constant in WWF/E history and he has the final word on everything, but I honestly think there are some people on the creative team, now and throughout the years who have thought something was a really good idea and appealed to Vince's receptive side. Vince seemed to really get behind Vader on commentary to the point that it's like he tried to re-brand Vader as his own creation, although in lamest ways possible such as the pre-fix "Big Van" being eliminated and Vince decided to address him as "The man they call Vader" instead. There's a real sense of solidarity to it, as if Vader just appeared in the WWF and had no past - which is more common practice these days than it ever has been. Mind you, it was easier to claim a wrestler was an original creation with minimal gimmick tweaks in the days before the internet and cable TV were available to the masses, but Vader was such a big star in other promotions that people knew who he was, compared to hardly anyone knowing that Hunter Hearst Helmsley was once Jean-Paul Levesque or that Shockmaster was Tugboat/Typhoon.

I was just mentioning him as an example of painting Vince as this egomanical guy that uses his performers in various ways to fuel his own amusement. True, there have been some documented occasions where Vince has pulled stuff using talent, such as calling Mike Jones "Virgil" as a rib at Dusty Rhodes.

I like discussion like this which severely contradicts the "Vince McMahon Truth" told by Matthew Randazzo and others. Some dirt sheet columnists have said stuff about Vince being funny about classic southern style talent and it's associate with "rasslin" - which Vince also apparently loathes. I do think that there may be some truth to Vince being bad at hiding his creation pride, as the thread starter has suggested. I think this may have rubbed off on other announcers too, just listen to Michael Cole hyping some of the original WWE creations, compared to those who have built a reputation in the indies or other promotions - this could be gorilla fed by Vince himself too. It's all subjective eventually, because if Vince and the other creative members get behind someone regardless of their history in the business, then they'll be as hyped as Hogan.

Sting/Rude was the featured match. Ahh, that would explain it - still 4.30 is a TV rating that WWE would be VERY happy about at this point in time. I might have to do some research, because it seems like WCW was doing pretty decent TV ratings prior to the Monday Night Wars, which means that WWF must have been doing very good ratings for Monday Night Raw, unless these kinds of WCW ratings are strictly confined to COTC specials and none of the other events.

No, the point was to see where other members of the board stand on the term and whether they associate it with positive and/or negative connotations. The IWC thing did start as a joke in reference to the armchair booking boom in the early 00's, but it's recently re-emerged as an often derogatory term for fans who use the internet to socialise with other fans of professional wrestling. JVK made an excellent post about the various subcultures that have emerged and some other posters have contributed about their experiences elsewhere on the internet. The whole point of this topic as far as I'm concerned is to see how people feel about the "IWC" terminology and all that goes with that label.

You know what I mean, The point I was getting at was people rubbishing the more traditional matches because they don't contain the elements associated with what some people might call a 30 minute spotfest. The IWC is popularly classed as a label for the wrestling fans who criticise the business without actually understanding what they are talking about, by those in the business. Outside of the business, it's slightly different because no wrestling fan can truly understand the business unless they've been a part of it - or at least that's what I understand from trying to understand some of the more intricate workings of the business, and I'm sure that's the same for anyone else here who isn't a part of the business. Therefore, anybody who trolls others for not subscribing to popular views or opinions expressed by people with reputation, are automatically shifted to that negative part of the fandom by anybody who chooses to follow their own opinions as a fan. It's hard to really put it into words, but what I'm trying to get at is that subcultures have emerged within the fandom and those using the same media (internet) to engage with other members of the fandom risk being labeled as something they aren't a part of.

I'm curious as to where people stand on the issue of being classed as a member of vilified community because they use the internet to socialise and discuss their interest/hobby/passion/distraction.

Let's just say that before I found here, I moved between 4 or 5 popular forums that more often or not had people mention my quotes whenever discussion started about something unpopular. I'll give you that, although "IWC" is more geared towards a group of people with similar interests - but very different opinions. Because it's emerged in the last few years as being the new (by people in the business) hated-upon minority of wrestling fans. I watch a lot of classic wrestling and puroresu along with WWE, but whenever I've watched ROH or any other indie promotions, the audience has acted like a progressive film critic! So many audience members in promotions such as PWG, Chikara or CZW are classic smarks, but much worse than that, they actively blur kayfabe during matches and chant smarkey shit at the wrestlers. It used to be dirt sheets and those who called wrestlers by their real names that were hated by the business, but now fans who are active in internet discussion have become a nuisance. There have been instances of storylines being changed because of internet leaks... But the main stigma that revolves around the IWC term is those who latch onto an opinion, as if it were gospel, by a dirt sheet writer or a well known wrestling blogger because they think it makes them sound like they have the business sussed. Anybody who claims to be a smark (those exact words) or who calls anyone who doesn't share a popular opinion a "mark" is labeled a member of the IWC.

Luger/Steiner Clash did a 4.30?!

I mean technically speaking, the term "IWC" term could apply to anyone who engages in discussion/fan commentary/social networking within the media of professional wrestling on the internet, but that's not what this is about... I'm talking about the derogatory application of the term that has become synonymous with wrestling fans who share (a derive) their opinions within communities that leech onto the same old sentiments (that include): "The Attitude era was the best era in wrestling history" "A match isn't good unless it's a 30 minute spotfest" "Paul Heyman makes everything better" "Vince Russo is to blame for everything" "Pro-Wrestling needs blood to work" ....ad nauseam Now whilst there are many fans in this "community" who hold these views or similar, there are many uniquely opinionated fans who are happy to be classed as being a part of the IWC. I personally have always called myself a fan, sure I'm smart to the business and have a deep interest in the inner workings, the coreography and business of professional wrestling, but I don't claim to be an expert and I welcome critique of any and/or all views that I may have about professional wrestling because that's just how it works in discussion forums. I like individuality and I stay away from generic opinion heavy communities, despite having the opportunity to share my opinions because I don't want people to take one good idea I have and believe that it's how wrestling has to be. This is naturally more likely to happen when Meltzer says something because a lot of fans latch onto him based upon his reputation without realising that his personal views are not what gave him this reputation (it was his dirt sheet and the insider information that it entaile -, the five-star ratings and podcasts came later). Anyway, I'm rabbiting! Where does everyone stand on the issue of "IWC" and how it's being applied to fans?

Honestly, despite the fact Sting is one of the biggest stars of modern professional wrestling and one who has spent most of his career working the main event, he seems to have spent a lot of his career playing second fiddle to Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan...

Again, she pretty much brought back female wrestlers as a focus (although brief) in American wrestling during a time where female wrestling was dead in the water. Of course, that is what I was trying to get round to, but I ended up filling in some of the blanks with speculation. Let's look at NAO from a factual perspective, they were THE top tag team in the WWF from 1998 to early 2000, they were top merchandise sellers during this period of time and they drew some of the biggest documented reactions in professional wrestling and they were both part of some of the most memorable storylines in that period of professional wrestling. They had 5 reigns as WWF Tag Team champions and were voted PWI Tag Team of the Year in 1998, their lasting appeal continues to this day, as evidenced by the reaction that Road Dogg recieved when he entered this year's Royal Rumble and the fact that many wrestling fans will cite them as an example of a popular act during that period of wrestling.

50/50, on one hand she did what no other female performer had managed to do in years - draw. OTOH, she's not the first thing you think of when you think of that period in wrestling, the first things you think of are Steve Austin, Vince McMahon and DX. Furthermore, she couldn't have sold a PPV alone (because she was the only over female in the company = no equal footing), whereas DX and Austin could.

I see both your points, but I will say that if the WWF, gave Steve Austin the night off and did a PPV with the main event being DX (Triple H, X Pac, Chyna and NAO) vs. NOD (The Rock, Owen Hart, D'Lo Brown, Godfather and Mark Henry) that it would have sold a decent number of buys. Secondary cast perhaps, but they could still be a justifiable part of any wrestling HOF based on the numbers they were doing and their popularity.

Who people paid to see, bought their shirts and went apeshit when their music hit. Just because they were booked as midcarders, doesn't mean that they couldn't still recieve reactions reserved for main eventers and sell merch like a Hogan.

I still stand by what I said, I think that McMahon is the WWE's biggest detriment as well as their biggest asset and his apparent embarrassment about being percieved as "just a lowly wrestling promoter" hurts his product. He's not "just a lowly wrestling promoter", not at all, but the erratic actions performed by the company (even if it's not down to him, he still gives the execution orders) often alienate the WWE fanbase.

In terms of house shows and as a part of DX, they were responsible for a large chunk of the gate, second only to Steve Austin.

Who could justifiably be in any HOF... ...for those reasons alone

I'm not getting all the love for the Punk/Jericho match at WM, it was very sloppy in places and seemed to drag on. I believe their street fight encounter at ER was the superior effort because there was more feud development between the two and it gave the match some much needed spice which was lacking from their WM encounter, and fueled the "dragging" feel that I previously mentioned. I think I was in the minority of those who weren't entirely bothered with Jericho's return, which hasn't really been all that great, as I predicted. I think a lot of the sloppiness is due to Jericho's new character, which isn't exactly that "new" with the only character tweaks being a jacket that lights up and a slightly different hairstyle. Had Jericho actually returned and did something groundbreaking as the hype had suggested, then he might well have been the WWE Champion - to critical acclaim - at this point.

I think it was insane that WON decided to take Benoit's HOF place to a vote following the tragedy. Sure, nobody wants to honour a guy who murdered his family and killed himself following that, but the "honouring" in question was done years before the tragedy occured. I think it's important to preserve history and it's ludicrous to erase something historical such as recognition by a HOF, regardless of what said person went on to do. At the time Benoit was inducted, he was one of the best workers in the world, and as Loss mentioned - he'd been one of the best for around 15 years at that point. I will say that I'm one of these people that doesn't get the indifference to the Benoit tragedy by some fans, he was one of my favourite wrestlers and he is most definitely one of the best workers that the business has ever seen, but he also murdered his family before taking his own life and therefore I have no respect or admiration for him. But, like I said it's important to not just "do-away" with things because you want to hide the fact that you once respected and recognised the work rate of someone who went on to become a monster. So for the benefit of historical preservation, I feel that Benoit's accomplishments should stay in the records.

Not true, the larger face vs. smaller heel has been done extremely well (and easily) on numerous occasions including: Roddy Piper vs. Hulk Hogan Rick Rude vs. Ultimate Warrior Ric Flair vs. Sting Razor Ramon vs. Shawn Michaels Mankind vs. The Undertaker Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar CM Punk vs. Samoa Joe Any heel X-Division wrestler vs. Samoa Joe Randy Orton vs. The Undertaker Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe CM Punk vs. The Undertaker Daniel Bryan vs. Anybody prior to the "Yes!" phenomenon

I was actually watching some old Mysterio's matches earlier (96-97 WCW) and it's incredible how much he has changed physically. In those days Mysterio was trim and had the physique that one would expect from an agility based athlete who had focused on overall fitness and stamina over size and strength. He actually looks taller because his body is proportionate and he's wearing the classical wrestling tights and platformed boots as opposed to his recent baggy slacks and flat boots. The most staggering difference is Mysterio's muscular gain, it looks ridiculous in some ways because his chest, torso and arms are completely out of proportion with the rest of his body and he has increased his width considerably as a result of the aforementioned muscular gains. I'm not going to speculate on what methods Mysterio has used to bulk up and whether they are legal, illegal or questionable but I will say that it surprises me how he can still go out and fly around the ring with all that extra weight and surface area.